ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

2007-11-02 13:02:47
On 2007-11-03 06:00, Bob Braden wrote:
*> *> One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level
  *> standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports
  *> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries
  *> that have been approved by the IESG. The RFC index could then point to
  *> approved implementation reports, without any formal "promotion" needed.
*> *> Brian *>
Brian,

So, this implementation report registry would be analogous to the
current errata registry>  E.g., the RFC search engine would note
the existence of implementation reports for a particular RFC, just
as it now notes the existence of errata?


That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see why we'd need the
overhead of making those reports into RFCs, and we'd have to ensure
that the IETF wasn't making any assertions that could carry
liability. (And I agree with the idea of reviving Larry Masinter's
draft.)

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>